Iowa Mennonites sue Civil Rights comm. over their religion vs homosexual mandate

if you are attracted to both sexes, then you would be bi-sexual, and I would imagine it's hard for a bisexual to understand why the rest of us have no choice in the mater

 

if you choose to engage in sex with both sexes then yes, that would be your preference

I do not subscribe to being born heterosexual. Until medical science has a clear-cut test to show that it is or is not a choice, then it is simply you with your belief and me with mine

neither has any ground to act as if we are correct

hmmmm, please note how I portray my opinion vs how you portray yours

 

No, equal rights trumps religion

 

Is there a medical test to prove whether you are left handed or right handed?

- - - Updated - - -

A Christian choses whether or not to be a Christian.

Doesn't mean that he forsakes freedom of religion because of his choice- nor does a Jew or a Muslim.

This odd concern whether someone is innately '******sexual' makes as much a sense as saying it is okay to discriminate against a Christian because that is just his choice to believe in Jesus.

 

I hear the claims, including from you, that being homosexual is not a choice. I hear that you were born that way. If that's the case, then there must be a medical test to confirm that.

My claim is that I chose to be heterosexual and cite my upbringing and environment because I was not exposed to one effeminate male, saw only male/female couples etc. I was not immersed or exposed to the homosexual lifestyle

Given that, it was obvious to go after girls. As an adult, I do not like the finger insertion into my anus by Drs. so I know that I would not like something larger inserted there so it again reassures me that I would not like homosexual sex.

Prove my theory is less sound than yours

 

And you dodged my point

Is there a medical test to prove whether you are left handed or right handed?

- - - Updated - - -



A Christian choses whether or not to be a Christian.

Doesn't mean that he forsakes freedom of religion because of his choice- nor does a Jew or a Muslim.

This odd concern whether someone is innately '******sexual' makes as much a sense as saying it is okay to discriminate against a Christian because that is just his choice to believe in Jesus

And the first homosexual male- assuming that this was relevant- where did the first homosexual male come from? And how do you know you were never exposed to an effeminate male- or frankly a homosexual male? Do you have perfect memories of your entire childhood?

Do you really believe any of this?

Do you really believe that all homosexual sex consists of nothing more or less than sticking a dick in your anus? Really?

I still remember the day I found out what sex was- well at least heterosexual vaginal intercourse was- and I was like "how incredibly gross'- but I was still attracted to girls. You seem to think that sexual attraction = sex. I don't.

I was attracted to girls long before I really understood what sex was. I was attracted to girls when I found the concept of that rather icky. I was always attracted to girls- and the mechanical aspects of it was never a component of my attraction.

I like women- I like the way they smell, feel, sound, look- when I am out, yes, I get distracted by every pretty girl that walks by- not because I am thinking "I would like to stick my dick in her vagina' but because I really, really like the way girls look.

Prove your theory is sound at all.

Meanwhile as I keep pointing out- whether or not you personally were willing to be attracted to girls or boys but just happened to choose girls at some point in your life is immaterial.

Just as immaterial as to whether or not a Jew chooses to be a Jew.

The law doesn't allow discrimination based upon race, religion, national origin or sexual preference.

 

A point that many forget is that the Rights protected in the US Constitution relate to the "person" and not to a couple. Whether a person is straight, bi, or gay doesn't matter, If the "person's" rights to equal protection under the law are violated it is a violation of the 14th Amendment. The gender of someone else, such as the person they choose to marry, has no bearing on their Rights as a Person.

 

Just further proves that people in this country don't care about anyone but themselves.

Left or right.

(*)(*)(*)(*), you dolts on the right let gays marry. You dolts on the left , don't force people to take part in something they don't want to.

In short, mind your own *******ned businesses.

How hard is that?

 

I have to respectfully disagree with that, as the SC itself has ruled, when Congress passes a law, it is "Presumed" to be Constitutional until otherwise declared.

 

There is no conflict between the presumption that a law is Constitutional until it is overturned and the fact that once it is overturned it establishes that law was always unconstitutional.

The "presumption" is replaced by the "fact" based upon a Supreme Court decision. For example in Loving v Virginia the laws that prohibited inter-racial marriage were "unconstitutional" from the moment they were passed because the people being denied the Right to Marry were subjected to an unconstitutional provision in law that violated the equal protection clause. The fact that the law wasn't overturned for many years didn't change the fact that those adversely affected prior to the Supreme Court decision were being denied their Constitutionally Protected Right of equal protection under the law. The violation of the Constitutional Right existed from the day that the law went into effect therefore the law was unconstitutional even though it remained in effect until the Supreme Court decision. Presumption was replaced by fact based upon the Supreme Court decision.

We can compare this to another example. A person is presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. A "murder" is presumed innocent until convicted but that doesn't change the fact that they murdered someone before being convicted. In truth they can even be found not guilty and still be a murderer. We've had cases like that where the state found a person not guilty of murder but later the federal government found them guilty of violating the Right to Life of the Victim because "murder" is the violation of the Right to Life of the person. Two different laws that address the identical violation of a Constitutionally protected right to life of the person.

"Fact" always replaces "Presumption" under the law.

 

I was merely pointing out about the doctrine of PRESUMPTION.

I see your point, but the court's view it different.

http://ndlawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Hessick.pdf

 

I believe that this is a good example of leftists attacking the religious freedom of others. We, as Christians, do have the right to discriminate against what we believe is immoral behavior which is what these Mennonites were doing. This is why we need greater conscience protections and protections for religious freedom here in the United States.

 

And if this same couple claimed that their religious beliefs said that they could not serve African Americans, or Jews or blind people?

Do we need greater protections for religious freedom so that someone can discriminate against others because of their faith?

 

If their religious beliefs claimed that they could discriminate against the people that you mention then that would be unjust discrimination. Also, a person who refuses to serve a "gay wedding" is not discriminating against people but behavior.

 

So you understand that religious belief's do not give people a 'get out of jail free' card when it comes to anti-discrimination laws.

If these people refused to serve an African American wedding- would you consider that to be just discriminating against behavior?

 

That's an interesting perspective.
The issue here is the business itself, not the couple.
The business may choose to decorate with religious symbols, but that does not make it a religious organization. It is still a taxable business venture.

The fact that they provide some goods/services to homosexual clients, but want to deny others on the basis of religious belief seems somewhat hypocritical.

Even if their religious belief forbids homosexual acts, are they being asked to perform any?

 

This is absolutely correct. The issue is based upon the business itself. Discrimination is allowed in "business" so long as it serves a legitimate interest of the enterprise. For example Hooters can limit employment to sexy young women (i.e. discriminate in employment) as that is a legitimate part of it's business image but it cannot deny fat women service that come into the business. A "Christian" book store cannot deny a Muslim or an athiest the right to purchase a Christain book at the store as it serves no legitimate. A coffee shop cannot deny a black person service as it serves no legitimate purpose of the enterprise.

The couple can have their religious beliefs and that is protected by the First Amendment but they cannot discriminate against others based upon their religious beliefs related to their enterprise as that would serve no legitimate purpose of the enterprise. As a commercial enterprise the legitimate purpose of the enterprise is to sell the goods and services the enterprise provides and the owners cannot discriminate against any person seeking to purchase their goods or services.

I would go one step further. If a "church" sells "wedding services" to the general public then it is engaging in a commercial enterprise, albeit not for profit, and should be required under the law to provide wedding services to anyone that chooses to use the church. It should not be allowed to discriminate. Only if the "church" limits providing those services to "members only" of the churcj then it should be allowed to discriminate. If it "sells" those services to the "general public" then it has to include all of the general public.

 

How do the actions of two people force two other people to violate their faith?

If I invite you out to lunch and you order a bacon cheese burger I am not in violation of my faith. The gay couple are not asking for a religiously endorsed wedding they are asking to use a public facility in a place that has civil rights laws the prohibit discrimination.

Here is the thing, do these religious people want a lawyer to pick around their private life in discovery looking for hypocrisy. I know I would find out what is under their fingernails.

 

Yes, of course religious beliefs do not give people a "get out of jail free" card when it comes to anti-discrimination laws but only if it is concerning unjust discrimination. An example of unjust discrimination is discriminating against someone based upon an inherent quality that they have such as race or ethnicity. An example of just discrimination would be discriminating against the behavior of someone such as someone who is entering into a "gay marriage". That is just discrimination. And so, if someone's religious beliefs claim that they can discriminate against someone who is doing something immoral such as entering into a "gay marriage" then they have every right to practice their religious beliefs, even if that means violating the law. Why? Because any law forbidding such discrimination would be an unjust law and an unjust law should not be obeyed.

 

If you were a vegan and someone came into a restaurant and ordered a bacon cheeseburger then you would have the right to refuse to serve the customer ordering that bacon cheeseburger. Instead of serving them, you could have another employee serve them who has no problems with someone eating animal products.

Also, it is not the actions of two people which are forcing others to violate their faith. It is the fact that those two people are suing someone of faith for practicing their religious beliefs by refusing to serve them based upon their immoral behavior which is wrong. In other words, someone who discriminates against someone because they are doing something immoral has every right to discriminate against them because of their immoral behavior. Nobody should be forced to participate in anyone's immoral behavior in any way shape or form. If that means refusing to serve a "gay wedding" then so be it. Frankly, if I were a photographer, baker, or florist and a gay couple came up to me and asked me to serve their "gay wedding" then I would absolutely refuse to serve their "gay wedding" because "gay weddings" are gravely immoral and it would be a violation of my faith to participate in an immoral activity such as a "gay wedding", especially a gravely immoral one which is what a "gay wedding" is. Now if that same gay couple had come up to me and asked me to provide them with flowers for their deceased mother's funeral then I would have absolutely no qualms with that because there is absolutely nothing immoral about having flowers at your mother's funeral. Do you see what I am saying?

 

Then what happens when they let gays in? Do they then marry gays in their church and ignore what the bible says?

 

Sure, why not?